High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:45732 HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPS No. 6140 of 2022 Harishankar S/o Babulal Patel Aged About 54 Years Working As Shramik On Daily Wages At Balar Canal, Sub Division Kasdol, District-Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Shankar District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional officer, Water Resource Division, Kasdol Tahsil And P.S. Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.09. 2025 -2- 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services. 2) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as daily-rated employee prior to 1988 in the Water Resources Department. He would further submit that the petitioner approached the learned Labor Court against the award of retrenchment and for regularization of his services and an award was passed in his favour on 10.05.2001 (Annexure P/2). He would also submit that the award dated 10.05.2001 (Annexure P/2) was challenged by the State before the Industrial Court and the said award was maintained vide order dated 26.07.2003 (Annexure P/3). He would argue that the respondent-department has regularized services of similarly situated daily- rated employees but the claim of the petitioner has not been considered. In support thereof, He placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raman Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR Online 2023 SC 854. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that posts were not available, therefore, services of the petitioner could not be regularized. He further submits that Clause 4 of the circular dated 05.03.2008 stipulates that as a one-time measure, proceeding for regularization can be initiated. He contends that as a one-time measure, a proceeding was initiated for regularization but the name of the petitioner could not be considered on account of (i) non-availability of sanctioned post and (ii) his services were not required. He further contends that the petitioner was not found fit for regularization and his claim was turned -3- down vide award dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P/13). 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents / material available on record. 5) Perusal of the award dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P/13) would show that the claim of daily-rated employees for regularization was considered as a one-time measure. It further states that since posts were not available and there was no need for daily-rated employees, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was turned down. 6) A perusal of the circular dated 05.03.2008 indicates that this circular is in two parts. The first part deals with the regularization of services of daily-rated employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and the second part deals with the regularization of daily-rated employees appointed between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997. 7) Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and the respondent authorities ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner according to the first part of the circular dated 05.03.2008 which says that “the employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 would be appointed against posts of work-charged and contingency paid employees or as regular employees in the department.” It further says that “if posts are not available, supernumerary posts will be created.” The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that posts are not vacant. It appears that the authority concerned rejected the claim of the petitioner according to the second part of the circular dated 05.03.2008; therefore, the decision taken by the respondent authorities with regard to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for regularization appears to be erroneous. -4- It is stated in the return filed by the State that the services of some of the daily- rated employees were regularized. The respondents in their return have not assigned reasons as to why the claim of the petitioner for regularization was not considered, whereas the claim of some daily-rated employees was considered by the respondent authorities, thus, action of respondents appears to be discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raman Kumar (supra) in paras 10 and 11 while dealing with a similar issue held as under:- “10. We are not inclined to accept the submission on behalf of the respondents. When the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has himself found that 65 persons were entitled to be regularized, the act of regularizing the services of only 35 employees and not regularizing the services employees, including the appellants, discriminatory and violative of Article Constitution of India. is 14 of other patently of the 11. In that view of the matter, we find that the High Court was in error in not entertaining the contempt petition. However, at this stage, relegating the appellants again to the High Court would unnecessarily cause delay in delivering justice to the appellants.” 9) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Raman Kumar (supra), it is quite vivid that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the award dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P/13) passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of the (i) observations made hereinabove and (ii) according to the first part of the circular dated 05.03.2008. -5- 10) The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this award. 11) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim